The discovery of ‘Oumuamua generated a lot of attention in the scientific community, and in the media. Given its unusual geometry and its origin outside the solar system, questions were soon asked as to whether ‘Oumuamua could be a spacecraft. Observations were made with radio telescopes to search for any direct evidence of transmissions indicating intelligent life, including by a team led by me using an Australian telescope (the Murchison Widefield Array.) We listened around FM radio frequencies, on the basis that any intelligent life on ‘Oumuamua may recognise FM frequencies popular on Earth.
No direct evidence of intelligent life was ever found in these searches.
*
The authors chose to assume solar radiation pressure to be the cause of the acceleration, and then determined the properties of ‘Oumuamua required to make this work. They require an object with thickness less than 1mm, an areal mass density of one to two grams per square centimeter, and a large area.
It is unlikely that nature would produce such an extreme geometry. The authors quickly mention this, before moving to a discussion that, under the assumption that solar radiation is the cause for the acceleration, ‘Oumuamua is artificial—that means the product of an alien civilisation.
The properties the authors derive under their assumptions are similar to those of solar sails being designed and built by humans as a possible way to travel interstellar distances. Bialy and Loeb spend half of their article discussion section on the idea that ‘Oumuamua could be a defunct or active solar sail belonging to an alien civilisation.
The nature and communication of evidence
Bialy and Loeb did not issue a press release about their study, but the media picked up the paper once it was accepted and available online, prior to this week’s journal publication. (This is something that happened to me in 2012, leading to my published non-detection of aliens being run on the front page of the BBC news website.)
Bialy and Loeb’s publication attracted headlines such as this, for example: “Harvard astronomers claim Oumuamua is ALIEN PROBE – ‘Nothing like we’ve ever seen!'”. Most other reporting was more balanced.
This is pretty normal. A lot of the media jump to aliens in the reporting of space and astronomy, even when the original reported studies have never mentioned aliens. Recent reporting of Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) is an example.
What surprised me was the reaction of some of my colleagues to Bialy and Loeb’s paper. On social media, there have been some pretty personal attacks by scientists—on Loeb in particular—for being in the media for this work.
Both new studies lay out their assumptions, cite substantial evidence, and undertake rigorous calculations. Both were accepted by top-quality journals after independent peer review. Both finish with bottom lines that the studies of ‘Oumuamua are inconclusive and we will need to examine more such objects that come through the Solar System in the future. Both sets of authors also come up with different perspectives and motivate different questions. But Loeb has ended up in the media, talking about his paper, and is being panned by some colleagues for it.
Since the pre-journal paper was picked up he told me he has been swamped by media interest.
I use the discussions with the media as a platform for highlighting the standard scientific methodology: an anomaly is observed in data, the standard explanation fails to explain it, and so an alternative interpretation is proposed.
I encourage anyone with a better explanation to write a paper about it and publish it. Wrong interpretations can be ruled out when more data will be released on ‘Oumuamua or other members of its population in the future.
As for the negative reactions he has received, he referred to an article he recently published where he paraphrased another scientist known for his once-controversial theories.
As Galileo reasoned after looking through his telescope, “in the sciences, the authority of a thousand is not worth as much as the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
Given my work on observations of ‘Oumuamua, a few journalists have contacted me for comment. These have been great opportunities to discuss in depth with journalists the nature of evidence, the difference between something being consistent with observations and direct evidence for a conclusion, and the need for evidence to be commensurate with the impact of a claim.
If aliens are claimed, direct and robust evidence is required—not a conclusion based on a few observations that are difficult to explain, plus a bunch of assumptions. But no scientist has claimed ‘Oumuamua is alien in this discussion – they have just raised questions and explored answers.
There is no point in shying away from a proper discussion on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, or in being personally critical of colleagues.
Scientists should take every opportunity to engage with the public and the media on the topic, given the public’s interest and the media’s willingness to report.
It is interesting, fun, and scientific, and a great opportunity to discuss the scientific method and science in an engaging manner. The media reporting of ‘Oumuamua shows that (aside from a few headlines,) the content of reports is generally pretty good and responsible.
Whatever ‘Oumuamua is (almost certainly not made by aliens, in my view,) it is a fascinating object and presents lots of interesting scientific questions that will trigger further studies and observations.
We will never see ‘Oumuamua again, and we may never know exactly what it is. But seeing ‘Oumuamua in the news is likely to inspire some kids to take up a career in science.
https://www.newsweek.com/oumuamua-alien-spaceship-avi-loeb-harvard-comet-solar-system-object-evidence-1317781
***
In October 2017, astrobiologist Karen J. Meech got the call every astronomer waits for: NASA had spotted the very first visitor from another star system. The interstellar comet — a half-mile-long object eventually named `Oumuamua, from the Hawaiian for “scout” or “messenger” — raised intriguing questions: Was it a chunk of rocky debris from a new star system, shredded material from a supernova explosion, evidence of alien technology or something else altogether? In this riveting talk, Meech tells the story of how her team raced against the clock to find answers about this unexpected gift from afar.
***
Mysterious Interstellar Object Oumuamua With Harvard’s Dr. Avi Loeb
ONAFHANKLIK 